Democracy Report Card

The 2022 Leadership Now Project Democracy Report Card helps business leaders make informed decisions about engaging in state-level politics and democracy reform.

The report card assigns a letter grade to each state based on their democratic performance across three critical categories; voting, electoral systems, and campaign finance. By evaluating the highest priority components of each category, this tool is a highly digestible, high-level view of state-level democracy.

States with red borders are at risk for election subversion in future elections*

Detailed Scores by State

Click below for a breakdown of each state’s results.

AK | AL | AR | AZ | CA | CO | CT | DE | FL | GA | HI | IA | ID | IL | IN | KS | KY | LA | MA | MD | ME | MI | MN | MO | MS | MT | NC | ND | NE | NH | NJ | NM | NV | NY | OH | OK | OR | PA | RI | SC | SD | TN | TX | UT | VT | VA | WA | WV | WI | WY

Key Takeaways

  1. Each state can make significant improvements in its law that would enhance its performance as a democracy. Most states rank poorly, with the majority receiving a “C” grade

  2. Many aspects of a state’s democratic performance are tied together; addressing one issue can lead to improvements in other aspects of a state’s performance

  3. Challenges in democratic performance aren’t endemic to either red or blue states; it is crucial for policymakers to take action in all states to make our elections more secure, modern, accessible and transparent. This is not a federal-level critique of red states; it’s a state-by-state analysis with the hope of encourages states to get better among their peers

The Details

How Scores Are Determined

This tool assigns a grade for each state’s performance in voting, electoral systems, and campaign finance. To determine an overall grade, the grades for each category are weighted evenly to take an average.

Within each category, approximately five metrics were identified and vetted. Within each metric, states were power-ranked to determine a grade. A state ranked first received 100% (an A) whereas a state ranked 25th received 75% (a C).

Outside of scoring, states are highlighted for their risk level for election subversion leveraging Bloomberg’s Election Risk Index. Bloomberg’s analysis identifies which state elections are most vulnerable to political interference and attempts to overturn the public votes.

Sources and metrics

Source and metric selection were supported by academic partners at Harvard University, Rice University, and the University of Wisconsin.

  • The “Voting” category highlights the experience of participating in the electoral process for an election. A state with strong performance in this segment makes voting accessible to all citizens and develops a culture of civic engagement.

    2018-2020 Average Turnout: Incorporates the last midterm and Presidential election. Voter turnout identifies level of engagement of a population, and would be impacted by how hard it is to vote. Better representation can be assumed by improved voter turnout. Source: MIT Elections Performance Index

    2018-2020 Average Registration: Voter registration rate measures the percentage of the voting age population that is registered to vote. A lower number indicates higher barriers to registering to vote, while a higher rate indicates a more active democratic culture. Source: MIT Elections Performance Index

    2020 % of Races Contested: The percentage of races contested; state, federal and local, indicates where voters actually have a choice between candidates for the same office and can help prevent highly polarized candidates from being elected. Source: OpenSecrets (formally FollowtheMoney.org)

    2020 Turnout Differences Between White Voters and Voters of Color: The difference in turnout between white and BIPOC voters indicates where voting laws may unfairly target different demographics. Source: US Census data

    2020 Voting Wait Time: Wait times for voting are a substantial barrier to voting in-person and are a measure of the electoral administration's staffing and preparation. Source: MIT Elections Performance Index

  • The process of administering an election includes registration, districts and who is allowed to and not allowed to vote. Strong performance in the “Electoral
    Systems” category means elections are administered productively and fairly.

    2022 Efficiency Gap Gerrymandering: We use the efficiency gap method to calculate gerrymandering. The efficiency gap measures the difference between the two parties' wasted votes, divided by the total number of votes. Stephanopoulos and McGhee (authors) argued that in a non-partisan redistricting with two roughly equally popular parties, the efficiency gap would be zero, with an equal number of wasted votes from either party. Source: 538

    2020 Disenfranchised voters: Disenfranchised voters often come from communities of color impacted by the U.S.’s prison system. These populations are large enough to note as some felons are never restored the right to vote after release. Source: The Sentencing Project, US Census data

    2020 Automatic Voter Registration: Automatic voter registration registers eligible citizens who interact with government agencies to vote and has been shown to expand voting access. Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, Ballotpedia

    2020 Mail in voting: Automatic mail-in ballot systems mandate that all eligible voters receive either a ballot or ballot application by default. In other states, voters can request a mail-in ballot. This enables early voting and eases voting accessibility. Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, Ballotpedia

  • The flow of capital in the political system is highly complex and difficult to track. A state that performs well in the “Campaign Finance” category has clear campaign finance limits and makes campaign funding transparent and accessible to find.

    2022 Independent spenders are required to report expenditures: Transparency on independent expenditures enables citizens to recognize who is attempting to influence elections through capital spend. Source: Coalition for Integrity

    2020 Contribution limits: Contribution limits prevent organizations and individuals from playing an outsized role in an election. Source: National Conference of State Legislatures

    2022 Campaign finance record accessible online: Transparency on campaign finance enables citizens to recognize who is attempting to influence elections through capital spend. Source: Coalition for Integrity

    2014-2020 Dark Money Spend: Dark money refers to political spending by nonprofit organizations — for example, 501(c)(4) (social welfare) 501(c)(5) (unions) and 501(c)(6) (trade association) groups — that are not required to disclose their donors. Such organizations can receive unlimited donations from corporations, individuals and unions. This enables individuals/organizations to influence elections without being accountable or known for that influence. Source: OpenSecrets

Actions You Can Take with This Data

Publish op-eds and public statements in areas of high need to vocalize support of common-sense reforms.

Evaluate opportunities to invest in local organizations and pro-democracy candidates.

Engage with candidates who support
pro-democracy legislation and lobby for positive legislation.

Consider a state’s performance on the Democracy Report Card when making new company investments or relocating employees.

Full Rankings